On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> It might be that it really should be more like Initializable, meaning, it > can be implemented by any mixin, and when we do UoW.remove() we call it on > any mixin that has it. That would seem to make even more sense. Yes, after digging in this for a while, I think I agree. > The problem otherwise, if we make it a private mixin, is that there's no > code referencing it so we would have to "hack" its presence. Yep, I have noted that :-) > Also, since > usually the implementation will be to handle aggregated state the only thing > you'd want to do with it is to create Concerns that catch create() and > remove(), and then do the buildup/cleanup. By allowing mixins to implement > it directly I think both of these things become much cleaner to implement. Not totally sure what you mean here... Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
